Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Two Bad Ways to Attack Intelligent Design and Two Good Ones.Jeffrey Koperski - 2008 - Zygon 43 (2):433-449.
    Four arguments are examined in order to assess the state of the Intelligent Design debate. First, critics continually cite the fact that ID proponents have religious motivations. When used as criticism of ID arguments, this is an obvious ad hominem. Nonetheless, philosophers and scientists alike continue to wield such arguments for their rhetorical value. Second, in his expert testimony in the Dover trial, philosopher Robert Pennock used repudiated claims in order to brand ID as a kind of pseudoscience. His arguments (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis: Breaking Rules.Michael J. Behe - 2001 - Philosophia Christi 3 (1):65-180.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • No Free Lunch Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence.William A. Dembski - 2002
    Darwin's greatest accomplishment was to show how life might be explained as the result of natural selection. But does Darwin's theory mean that life was unintended? William A. Dembski argues that it does not. In this book Dembski extends his theory of intelligent design. Building on his earlier work in The Design Inference (Cambridge, 1998), he defends that life must be the product of intelligent design. Critics of Dembski's work have argued that evolutionary algorithms show that life can be explained (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • Ad Hominem Arguments and Intelligent Design: Reply to Koperski.Christopher A. Pynes - 2012 - Zygon 47 (2):289-297.
    Abstract Jeffrey Koperski claims in Zygon (2008) that critics of Intelligent Design engage in fallacious ad hominem attacks on ID proponents and that this is a “bad way” to engage them. I show that Koperski has made several errors in his evaluation of the ID critics. He does not distinguish legitimate, relevant ad hominem arguments from fallacious ad hominem attacks. He conflates (or equates) the logical use of valid with the colloquial use of valid. Moreover, Koperski doesn't take seriously the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations